Sunday, October 09, 2016

Trump is right, the system is rigged.

Did Clinton Campaign Collude With George Stephanopoulos On Interview With ‘Clinton Cash’ Author?

Internal Clinton campaign emails show that campaign officials took credit for ABC News host George Stephanopoulos’ adversarial interview last year with the author of a book critical of the Clinton Foundation.

“Great work everyone,” Jesse Ferguson, the Clinton campaign’s deputy national press secretary, wrote in an April 26, 2015 email to other Clinton campaign officials. “This interview is perfect. he lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work).”

The emails, which were hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, were released on Friday by WikiLeaks.

Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton’s communications director in the 1990s, was heavily criticized for the interview, both because of his aggressiveness with Schweizer and because he failed to disclose that he has donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years.

The references to the team’s “work” suggests that the campaign somehow shaped Stephanopoulos’ interview.

Other Clinton insiders were pleased with the interview, the leaked emails show.

“This is therapeutic to watch,” said Clinton’s traveling press secretary, Nick Merrill. “George is cool as a cucumber, doesn’t rush into it, but just destroys him slowly but surely over the course of the interview, culminating when he asks him about A/S Fernandez confirming that HRC had absolutely nothing to do with the Uranium 1 deal.”

“It was beautiful to watch,” chimed in Karen Finney, a senior communications adviser for the campaign.

ABC News did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment. On Sunday, network host Martha Raddatz will co-moderate the presidential debate between Clinton and Donald Trump.

Other emails discussing “Clinton Cash” shortly after the Stephanopoulos interview show that the campaign was desperate to obtain a copy of the book before its May 5 release.

The desperation reached the point where the campaign considered an option that even campaign manager Robby Mook seemed to believe might be a violation of federal campaign laws.

Mook, working off of a suggestion from Podesta, asked Marc Elias, the campaign’s general counsel, if the campaign was allowed to deploy controversial political operative David Brock to look for the book.

Brock is a former journalist and Clinton foe who now runs several pro-Clinton entities, including Media Matters and the super PACs American Bridge and Correct the Record.

The idea to put Brock to work came about on March 21.

Palmieri, the campaign’s communications director, wrote that the campaign was “having a hard time” finding the book and that it “would be big” if someone could obtain a copy.

“Feels like what Brock is good at,” Podesta wrote.

Mook responded, “Oh that’s a great idea,” and then he reached out to Elias.

“Marc, can we communicate with Brock about getting a copy of this Clinton Cash book? We need it very urgently if possible,” he asked, showing that the campaign was unsure whether communicating with Brock was above-board.

The lawyer asked if the book was a published book or a campaign research book.

“It’s a book about to be published by Harper Collins called Clinton Cash,” Mook replied.

The emails do not include a response to that question, and it is unclear if the campaign ever contacted Brock on the matter.

Brock’s super PAC, Correct the Record, currently coordinates with the Clinton campaign by exploiting a loophole in election law that allows for coordination on the Internet. However, at the time of the email exchange, Correct the Record functioned only as an opposition research arm of American Bridge, a pro-Clinton super PAC which is prohibited from coordinating with the campaign.

A day after Mook’s outreach to Elias, Podesta suggested using Brock in another capacity to push back on the book.

“Shouldn’t we attack the book or get Brock to attack the book as a Murdoch special. From the folks who brought you Fox News,” he wrote.

“Yes,” Palmieri replied.

That exchange came in response to an email thread showing that the campaign tried to shape CBS’s coverage of the book during a segment of “60 Minutes.”

Media Matters CEO David Brock arrives at a fundraiser for Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe at the home of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Northwest D.C. Monday, Sept. 30, 2013. (Grae Stafford/The Daily Caller)

“Unclear exactly what [60 Minutes] is doing, but Craig has had an initial meeting with them to see if we can finesse this from starting off in such a ridiculous place as to have its premise be that book,” Merrill wrote.

“So the hope is that before we start having to push back on the story we have at least some hope of combatting the premise as ridiculous. And of course, having the book would help that,” Merrill continued.

Mandy Grunwald, one of the campaign’s communications gurus, asked the group “which correspondent” and “which producer” were working on the story.

The story never did air. Politico reported last year that “60 Minutes” rejected an offer to air exclusive segments of parts of the book. ABC News also rejected an exclusive offer. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News accepted offers.

163 comments:

Every story that comes out on Clinton expands on the most obvious story in this election. A dog with three legs could have beat her this year. Any candidate but Trump, a narcissistic whackadoodle, would be walking away with this election right now.

Let's send out a big thank you to the crazy primary voters who put us in this mess. All Clinton has to do is continue to play rope-a-dope for the next month as Trump continues to self-immolate and she's in.

Despite the observation that 'a fool and his money are soon elected', there is also an older truism, 'there's always the exception that proves the rule'.

In tonight's debate, Trump will be presented with numerous opportunities to counter-punch with Clinton on a whole range of issues. Will he take advantage of it or will Clinton toss out a couple of personal insults only to watch Trump run around chasing them (and wasting time) like that Labrador chasing his ball as mentioned in the last stream?

Trump takes debate preparation as a personal insult. It's likely he'll still be chasing his tail over some perceived slight for the next few days. Well, unless he really does bad, in which case, he will be complaining about microphones, lights, moderators, the MSM, the questions, and the stacked audience, everybody but Trump.

If Trump were capable of contrition (real or fake albeit convincing) he could wipe out many of self-inflicted problems he has with many Americans. Americans believe in people changing and in second chances.

Unfortunately, Trump due to his pathological defensiveness seems incapable of ever admitting he was wrong.

That's Trump. This latest episode won't change any minds. The Clintonistas will ride it as far as they can (it's rather suspicious that it took until one month ahead of the election, a couple days before the 2nd debate) for the video to come out. The Trumpettes will wright it off as one more example how the 'election is rigged' almost as bad as that mike that was tampered with at the last debate.

The only area that 'might' be affected is with women. And there, I think it will simply confirm what the majority think of Trump anyway.

If Trump loses this election it will be because of his psychology and personality defects not because of any specific incident.

How many times has Trump blown the opportunity to exploit those blockbusters or counter-punch Clinton charges with reference to them and instead go off into some ill-advised rant, insult, or non-sequitur.

He seems to have lost a lot of Republican politicians with this last incident. I think it is so problematic for him because it confirms, graphically, his conceit and boorish nature. It speaks to the heart of his character and confirms what many suspected of him. There is no ambiguity in the clip unlike that video Doug was so hopped up about purp9rting to show Bill Clinton groping a stewadress. Sure the Trumpettes will dismiss it as we read here each day. It sure is fun watching themselves contort themselves into freaky pretzels trying defend the oaf - oh oh Obama said the pussy word too!

Early voting has already started. I received my absentee ballot last week. Trump is about out of time.

Tonight Trump has a shitload of issues to lay on Clinton. There were at least 10 he could hit her with from Friday's Wikileak dump.

What should Trump do tonight?

IMO, he should apologize for his Access Hollywood remarks. He should not bring up Bill Clinton. He should not call people hypocrites for condemning him for the remarks. He should grovel on the issue. He should do all of this whether he believes a bit of it or not. He should do it whether it sticks in his craw or he is ready to explode. He should get it out of the way in the first 5 minutes and move on even if he has to bring it up himself. When Hillary tries to keep bring it up, he should simply say "I have apologized for my words, Hillary heard me, now she is simply trying to divert from the real issues facing this country, such as..."

What are the chances of him doing this?

Judging from the tweets he has been sending out over the last 24 hours, probably just slightly north of zero.

If you look at her foreign policy views IMO they match up pretty close to that of Deuce's, even more so than those of Gary Johnson.

Sure she is a raging liberal on domestic and social issues but to reject her on that basis is simplistic. The president has immense power when it comes to foreign policy but much less in domestic.

An objective view would see that it is likely the GOP will hold onto the House. As of a week ago, it was a toss up on who would control the Senate. Any chance of far-left or far-right legislation getting through a divided Congress is probably pretty far-fetched.

The same applies to the partisan argument about the Supreme Court. Offering up a nominee is no guarantee he will be confirmed (or as we have recently seen even allowed out of committee).

Beyond that, Supreme Court nominees are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get (a fact lost on some simple-minded bumpkins).

A few examples illustrate the point. IMO, the two worst SCOTUS decisions in the last 50 years came under courts dominated by justices nominated by Republicans.

Roe v Wade

IMO, the decision (regardless of whatever you think of the morality or justice of the end result) was a faulty application of judicial activism that had no justification in the Constitution but instead was designed to settle social problem.

At any rate, I doubt there are many that would call this a conservative decision rather than a liberal one; yet the vote was 7-2 on a court with the Chief Justice and 5 other justices who were nominated by GOP presidents, that is 2/3 of the court were Republican nominees.

Citizens United

Citizen's United started out calling for a narrow interpretation of whether Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Justice Kennedy then decided he wanted to expand the case to cover 1st Amendment rights. John Edwards fought the expansion at first then decided to go along with it then when the Dem nominated justices screamed he decided to narrow the discussion again but by then it was too late.

What we ended up with was a fiasco, a decision that essentially says corporation have the ability to vote (all right, to influence the vote) and welcomed in the current status of Super-PAC's where wealthy individuals can contribute unlimited amounts of money in order to try to control the message in public elections.

Citizens was decided on a 5-4 vote with all the Republican nominated justices voting for it.

It is interesting that this year though the Dems argued about the case, Clinton was the one who has and continues to benefit from the decision.

Justice Kennedy, the guy who started the mess, recently stated he regrets the decision didn't turn out the way it was intended.

Or, take the case of Chief Justice John Edwards a Bush nominee, who single-handedly gave us Obamacare by parsing out the 'tax' issue, a throw-away issue only mentioned in passing by the bills proponents, so as to assure his Court didn't take the controversial course of rejecting a massive government program that was already starting to be implemented.

And to guarantee a GOP box of chocolates, some would advise voting for endowing a blustering megalomaniac with the nuclear codes.

It was on Book I of a two-volume biography on Hitler. In reading thru it, I was struck by the descriptions of Hitler’s personality and tactics and the similarities between demagogues whether they are from the 1930’s or today.

The bolded [Trump]s were added by me to make a point.

How did Adolf Hitler — described by one eminent magazine editor in 1930 as a “half-insane rascal,” a “pathetic dunderhead,” a “nowhere fool,” a “big mouth” — rise to power in the land of Goethe and Beethoven? What persuaded millions of ordinary Germans to embrace him and his doctrine of hatred? How did this “most unlikely pretender to high state office” achieve absolute power in a once democratic country and set it on a course of monstrous horror?

• Hitler [TRUMP] was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a“characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity…

•Hitler [TRUMP] was known, among colleagues, for a “bottomless mendacity” that would later be magnified by a slick propaganda machine that used the latest technology (radio, gramophone records, film) to spread his message. A former finance minister wrote that Hitler “was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth…”

• Hitler TRUMP was an effective orator and actor, Mr. Ullrich reminds readers, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a “mask of moderation” when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. Here, “Hitler adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,” Mr. Ullrich writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order…

•Hitler [TRUMP] increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans. He often harked back to a golden age for the country, Mr. Ullrich says, the better “to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay…”

• Hitler’s [Trump’s] repertoire of topics, Mr. Ullrich notes, was limited, and reading his speeches in retrospect, “it seems amazing that he attracted larger and larger audiences” with “repeated mantralike phrases” consisting largely of “accusations, vows of revenge and promises for the future.” But Hitler virtually wrote the modern playbook on demagoguery, arguing in “Mein Kampf” that propaganda must appeal to the emotions — not the reasoning powers — of the crowd. Its “purely intellectual level,” Hitler said, “will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach.” Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” he went on, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward…”

• Hitler’s [Trump’s] rise was not inevitable, in Mr. Ullrich’s opinion. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed, he contends; even as late as January 1933, “it would have been eminently possible to prevent his nomination as Reich chancellor.” He benefited from a “constellation of crises that he was able to exploit cleverly and unscrupulously” — in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an “erosion of the political center” and a growing resentment of the elites. The unwillingness of Germany’s political parties to compromise had contributed to a perception of government dysfunction, Mr. Ullrich suggests, and the belief of Hitler supporters that the country needed “a man of iron” who could shake things up…

• Hitler’s [Trump’s] ascension was aided and abetted by the naïveté of domestic adversaries who failed to appreciate his ruthlessness and tenacity, and by foreign statesmen who believed they could control his aggression. Early on, revulsion at Hitler’s style and appearance, Mr. Ullrich writes, led some critics to underestimate the man and his popularity, while others dismissed him as a celebrity, a repellent but fascinating “evening’s entertainment.” Politicians, for their part, suffered from the delusion that the dominance of traditional conservatives in the cabinet would neutralize the threat of Nazi abuse of power and “fence Hitler in…”

• Hitler [Trump], it became obvious, could not be tamed — he needed only five months to consolidate absolute power after becoming chancellor. “Non-National Socialist German states” were brought into line, Mr. Ullrich writes, “with pressure from the party grass roots combining effectively with pseudo-legal measures ordered by the Reich government.” Many Germans jumped on the Nazi bandwagon not out of political conviction but in hopes of improving their career opportunities, he argues, while fear kept others from speaking out against the persecution of the Jews. The independent press was banned or suppressed and books deemed “un-German” were burned. By March 1933, Hitler had made it clear, Mr. Ullrich says, “that his government was going to do away with all norms of separation of powers and the rule of law…”

• Hitler [Trump] had a dark, Darwinian view of the world. And he would not only become, in Mr. Ullrich’s words, “a mouthpiece of the cultural pessimism” growing in right-wing circles in the Weimar Republic, but also the avatar of what Thomas Mann identified as a turning away from reason and the fundamental principles of a civil society — namely, “liberty, equality, education, optimism and belief in progress.”

So as we see Trump didn’t write the book on demagoguery. It was written long before his first bankruptcy. But there is no denying he probably read that book, or at least the Cliff’s Notes version. It was probably titled Demagoguery for Dummies and he probably picked it up in the gift shop of one of his golf resorts.

Hillary Clinton has a long history of violence and abusing and men, women and security officers.

Here are a few of her more memorable lines:

“Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise.”(From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 – Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

“You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!”From the book “Inside” by Joseph Califano, p. 213 – Hillary yelling at Democrat lawyer.

“Son of a b*tch!”

“Son of a b*tch!”(From the book “American Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 – Hillary’s opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly visited Iraq on Thanksgiving just days before her highly publicized trip.)

F**k off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.”(From the book “American Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 – Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good morning.”

“You f**king idiot.”(From the book “Crossfire” p. 84 – Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.)

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”(From the book “The First Partner” p. 259 – Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

“Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!”(From the book “Hillary’s Scheme” p. 89 – Hillary’s various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

“Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I s ay, Okay!!!?”(From the book “Unlimited Access”, by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 – Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

“Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!”(From the book “The Survivor,” by John Harris, p. 382 – Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

“Where’s the miserable c*ck sucker?”(From the book “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5 – Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!”(From the book “Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72 – Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

“Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t f**k her here!!”(From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 – Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

“You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinking of her as a human being”-Hillary Clinton(From the book “The Case Against Hillary Clinton” by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

“The only way to make a difference is to acquire power”(From the book “I’ve Always Been A Yankee Fan” by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 68 – Hillary to a friend before starting law school.)

Q is very secretive about what the J indicates, cause I asked and he wouldn't tell me.

It's all part of his pumping up his 'mystery aura' I think....

Aura -

a supposed emanation surrounding the body of a living creature, viewed by mystics, spiritualists, and some practitioners of complementary medicine as the essence of the individual, and allegedly discernible by people with special sensibilities.

He was often described as an egomaniac who “only loved himself” — a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and... with a “characteristic fondness for superlatives.” His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity…He adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners,...and...peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds’ fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order…He increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising “to lead...to a new era of national greatness,” though he was typically vague about his actual plans...He often harked back to a golden age for the country...his repertoire of topics...was limited, and reading his speeches in retrospect, “it seems amazing that he attracted larger and larger audiences” with “repeated mantralike phrases” consisting largely of “accusations, vows of revenge and promises for the future.”...He virtually wrote the modern playbook on demagoguery, arguing...that propaganda must appeal to the emotions — not the reasoning powers — of the crowd. Its “purely intellectual level,” he said, “will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach.” Because the understanding of the masses “is feeble,” he went on, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be “persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward…”he was the avatar of what Thomas Mann identified as a turning away from reason and the fundamental principles of a civil society — namely, “liberty, equality, education, optimism and belief in progress.”

Hmmm.

That description sure sounds like someone we sill see in the debates tonight.

Using all capital letters in electronic communication is not unlike shouting at someone in person. It is a common technique used by HUSTLERS to get attention AND THOSE WITH VISION PROBLEMS.

It does not matter what form of internet communication you are using, shouting is not acceptable. There are caveats and exceptions. Subject lines, headings, and advertisements are often in all capital letters for readability reasons...

In reality, shouting at someone is done to get their attention through intimidation. Shouting breaks the standard level of volume and tone, a voice should carry, to force someone into doing something. This is not socially acceptable in a civilized society because it is a use of force not reason.

Shouting at people is unreasonable in most cases. It raises the case that standard text should carry. It is not acceptable in a civilized cybersphere. Therefore, it is bad netiquette to use all caps because it is unacceptable to yell at people in a civilized society or cybersphere. Do not digitally disrespect others by using all caps.

While I agree using all caps in a standard text message is uncivilized and boorish, I also view it as a hysterical cry for help by someone frustrated by his inability to express his meager thoughts in an intelligible fashion through the use of normal speech patterns.

My halo is always polished, Mome. I have a designated halo polisher to assure that.

I merely tell it like I believe it is.

For instance, I have no problem at all right now saying Trump is doing great tonight. Or, that Hillary does seem rattled (and surprised). Or, that Trump seems to have the lady moderator so frustrated she looks like she is going to have a case of the vapors. IMO Trump probably won the debate.

Now, with regard to the tone of your comment, IMO, you seem to suffer the same malady as the Bobbsey Twins. If someone doesn't share the same positive view of their candidate they do, then they assume or at least proclaim that you must automatically support Hillary.

Pure nonsense. Anyone who spends any time on this blog knows that's not true.

Or, is it that you are saying that no matter what Trump says or does, what the other side does is worse, so Trump is acceptable? If that is what you are saying all I can say is bullshit.

Or, have I misunderstood. If so and if it's something else you are trying to say let me know.

You've misunderstood. but that's ok, I don't want you to get mad and leave so just forget it. I do value your input on most issues but I disagree with you on trump. Every man I know can recall a time when they were glad they were not hot miked. Were you trying to insult me by throwing me in with bob and Doug? Might be an insult to them.

Every man I know can recall a time when they were glad they were not hot miked.

Hardly an issue for me.

The only real post I put up on the subject was my initial one in which I put up the link to the video and left a comment that 'Trump is already in trouble with women. This won't help.'

The only other two posts I put up on the subject came up later. They were a couple of jokes I threw up. After a couple of days of the Bobbsey Twins pissing and moaning and complaining that neither Ash or I were showing our loyalty by cutting up Bill and Hillary in the same way they were, I threw the jokes up just to jerk their chains.

One odd comment he made though was that he was glad that Trump didn't completely bomb in the debate because if he had he might have been forced to withdraw and the GOP could have brought in a competent nominee to run against Hillary.

:o)

It leaves so many open questions.

Was he trying to rationalize the fact that Trump did better on the debate?

Is he afraid Hillary would lose if there was any other candidate but Trump?

Did he actually believe Trump would pull out of the race regardless of how he did in the debate?

Did Donald Trump take advantage of the tax code?Los Angeles Times - ‎2 hours ago‎

QUESTION

What billionaire would not? Would Warren Buffet? Of course not. Warren has his own tax avoidance scam. He buys companies that pay high dividends. These dividends are taxable to the investors and stockholders and a revenue source to the Treasury. However, Warren, the Sanctimonious, after acquiring the companies, quits paying dividends. He uses the after tax profit to buy other companies, repeating the process. The net result is that Berkshire Hathaway deprives the Treasury of taxes.

Seven of the nine ISIS jihadis who launched a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris last November entered Europe by posing as refugees.

The attackers were part of a group of 14 who plotted their way into Western Europe by riding the wave of the migrant crisis last year, according to Hungarian security officials.

By using fake Syrian passports, many of the attackers, already on European terror watch-lists, were able to slip back into Europe undetected, along with thousands of other refugees.

One hundred and thirty people were killed in November when a group of gunmen and suicide bombers launched a wave of attacks across Paris, targeting the Bataclan concert hall, the Stade De France and several restaurants and bars. Three hundred sixty-eight people were also injured in the attacks, almost 100 of them seriously.

Some of the remaining terrorists in the group participated in the Brussels attacks earlier this year in three coordinated suicide bombings at Brussels Airport and at Maalbeek metro station killed 32 people.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

At the lowest point in the second presidential debate Hillary Clinton tried to blame her compulsive lying on Abraham Lincoln. Not the real Lincoln, but the fictional version depicted in the Spielberg movie.

“She lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln,” Trump said in exasperation. “Honest Abe never lied.”

The only thing Hillary and Lincoln have in common is Illinois.

If Hillary had been looking for wisdom from Lincoln, she might have started with the famous quote often attributed to him. “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” It’s been a while since Hillary has been able to fool anybody.

The majority of the country holds an unfavorable view of her. Even in a blue state like California, 53 percent of the voters have an unfavorable view of the woman they are most likely going to end up voting for. It’s not just that Hillary is a liar and a crook. Plenty of politicians are. It’s that her dishonesty and corruption are so blatant as to be insulting to the intelligence of even the dimmest voter.

Hillary’s lies come apart within 5 minutes of being told. And yet nothing is ever her fault. Previously she had blamed her rogue email operation on Colin Powell. Now she decided to blame her lies on Lincoln.

By the second debate, the topic was no longer who should be president, but who should be in jail. Both candidates were clear that their opponent was utterly unfit to hold office.Trump was the clearest of all about it. “Because you'd be in jail,” he said. “If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” he promised.

Jail is where Hillary belongs. Her stained sheet of crimes goes back quite a few decades by now.And her campaign has done more to demonstrate the widespread networks of establishment corruption than a thousand investigations could have ever managed to do. From the Clinton Foundation to the media, her base of support is as rotten as she is. And just as ruthless and determined.

There she was stumbling around on stage, haggard and still laughing her horrifying brittle laugh and reciting canned applause lines in the hope that someone would cheer. And to complete the pairing, Martha Raddatz was there as her doppelganger, berating Trump the way that Hillary would have liked to if she weren’t still delusional enough to think someone out there might still be fooled by her current act.

That’s why the Clinton campaign and its extensive network of media allies want to make the campaign about anything and everything but Hillary. Including an old tape. “What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women. What he thinks about women. What he does to women,” Hillary hectored.

We all know what her husband thinks about women and does to women. We also know what Hillary did to her husband’s victims. They appeared together with Trump at a press conference before the debate.

We also know what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton, a 12-year-old girl who had been raped and beaten into a coma by her client. Hillary accused that child of fantasizing and making it all up.

1) “Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise”. Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244

(2) “Fuck off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.” From the book “America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p.90

(3) “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book “The First Partner” p. 25

(4) “Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?” Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton ‘s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139

(5) “Where’s the miserable cock sucker?” (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”) Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book “The Truth about Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5(6) “You fucking idiot” Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book “Crossfire” ~pg. 84

(7) “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back!” Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72

(8) “Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t fuck her here!!” Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243

There it is ……..book, chapter and page…….the real Hillary Rotten Clinton!

Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act!

This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life .

Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Now it will be clear why the crew of “Marine One” helicopter nick-named the craft, “Broomstick ONE ”

There's a Democrat meme that says, "So what if Hillary Clinton is sick? So were JFK, FDR, and a few other presidents." Left at face value, it seems to brush away all of Hillary's neurological signs. But there is a lot more to the story.

John F. Kennedy had Addison's Disease. This is a serious disease that does not affect your ability to think. It primarily affects your body's ability to manage salt and water. Franklin Roosevelt was paralyzed, probably from polio. Once again, that does not affect your ability to think. But what about Hillary Clinton?

Hillary has displayed a number of neurological signs. (Signs are what you and I see, not what she feels.) At the Democratic National Convention, she had an oculogyric crisis. At her Las Vegas rally, she had a "freeze." On numerous occasions her eyes have crossed involuntarily. And at the first presidential debate, she displayed a "pill-rolling" tremor. All of these lead to the strong suspicion that she has Parkinson's Disease. Dr. Lisa Bardack's letters and notes have added to this suspicion by being completely silent on neurological issues.

Unlike polio and Addison's Disease, Parkinson's Disease (PD) has drastic effects on the ability to think. A good friend with PD had to sell multiple successful businesses because his PD took away his ability to manage them. This comes from the fact that PD sufferers all get "off" states.Off states come when the level of levodopa, the main drug used to treat PD, falls low. In an off state, the PD sufferers are unable to manage any sort of high-level responsibility. They have to wait for the off state to end. When they return to the on state, they can look and act normally. But shortly they will hit another off state. And in the off state, the "3:00 AM phone call" will go to voicemail.

And that's the good news. A large number of PD sufferers will develop hallucinations, and the majority will develop dementia. Just imagine what a truly demented president might do, especially before the dementia became fully public.

There is no treatment for PD. Medication only manages the pathological movements. It has no effect on the progress of the disease. Thus, there is no way to identify when a president with PD became mentally incompetent, and no way to prevent that mental failure. America can handle a president with an illness.

Quirk has been signaling me that's he's in jail once again, and is asking for my aid, via bond or breakout....

I finally put 2 and 2 together and got 4 though the help of this article -

Trump Will Win the National Battle for Legitimacy By David P. Goldman October 9, 2016

The referee should have stopped it in the tenth. Punching at will, Donald Trump said, "Hillary used the power of her office to make $250 million. Why not put some money in? You made a lot of it while you were secretary of State? Why aren't you putting money into your own campaign? Just curious." Reeling and against the ropes, Clinton gasped that she supported ... the Second Amendment. It was a brilliant rhetorical device: under the rubric of campaign financing, Trump slipped in an allegation that Clinton corruptly enriched herself by using the power of her office for personal gain--and Clinton didn't even respond. That's a win by a knockout.

That's the decisive issue of the campaign: the corrupt machinations of a ruling elite that considers itself above the law, and the rage of the American people against the oligarchical ruling class that has pulled the ladder up behind it. Trump's bombshell below Clinton's waterline came at the end of the debate, well prepared by jabs at Clinton's erased emails and Bill's rapes. Trump used the "J" word--that is, jail. That was perhaps the evening's most important moment. This is not an election fought over competing policies but a struggle for legitimacy. A very large portion of the electorate (how large a portion we will discover next month) believes that its government is no longer legitimate, and that it has become the instrument of an entrenched rent-seeking oligarchy.....

WASHINGTON, D.C — In an exclusive video interview at the presidential suite of the historic Watergate Hotel, the victims of Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual assault — Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones — got together for the first time in person to express their personal fear of Hillary Clinton and to warn voters that Clinton does not stand for women’s issues.The three women, who say their lives were forever changed by their experiences with the Clintons, used words like “terrified” and “frightened” to describe their feelings about the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Watch the video here: VIDEO

When asked about the counter-argument that their allegations toward Bill Clinton only dig up past “infidelities,” all three women attacked establishment media figures for using this language.

Donald Trump holds press conference with Bill Clinton accusers.

“We were not willing participants,” Broaddrick said. “These were crimes.” In a separate interview, Broaddrick shared her own story of brutal sexual assault which she says Bill Clinton perpetrated against her.

Willey called out NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell and CNN’s Jake Tapper by name, challenging them: “These are not infidelities. A rape is not an infidelity. These are crimes. Any other people would be in jail.

“This is no longer about infidelities, indiscretions, girlfriends, sex, interns — none of those. This is about a serial rapist, a predator, and his wife who has enabled his behavior all of these years.”Later in this interview, Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick expressed fear at how a potential President Hillary Clinton would use the power of her office.

“It terrifies me and it should terrify all women,” Jones stated about Hillary’s presidential ambitions.“It should terrify all men and women,” Willey added. “She will annihilate any enemy. All of her enemies. Anybody who has spoken against her. Across the board for I don’t know how many years. She will get rid of them.”

“No woman who advocates for women attacks the victims of sexual assault be it by her husband or anybody else,” said Willey.

The women argued that the term “enabler” best describes Hillary Clinton’s role in her husband’s alleged sexual crimes.

“There is not a better word for any of this,” stated Broaddrick. “Especially when she threatened me personally.”

Willey added, “She is complicit in everything that he has done.”

“She had helped him do it,” asserted Jones.

“She has turned a blind eye for decades against what he has done” stated Broaddrick. “And she has been the main one to help cover this up. And go after us.”

Willey and Jones both accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, with Willey saying that she suffered acts of intimidation in what she has described as a campaign to silence her. Broaddrick says that Bill Clinton raped her, and recently stated in an interview with this reporter that she was raped twice during the same 1978 alleged assault.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.